Tom Lane wrote:
We're certainly not putting any such thing into 8.1.*. The proposed
patch for 8.2 is stalled ATM because of the problem of not having a
predictable size for the per-partition hash tables. Fixed-size shared
memory is a harsh mistress :-(
Fair enough :)
Just wanted to
Tom Lane wrote:
I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance
with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box.
[...]
Hullo again :)
I'm unfamiliar with postgres development practices, so this is more a
request for information than anything else.
It's been about a month
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:38:01 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the particular test case being looked at here is read-only
(Gavin, is that correct?)
Yes - I made sure the devels made it readonly so I could farm search
requests out to Slony-replicated machines (ended up running
